bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to moonpuppy
Re: Oh really?
'When you keep repeating the same line, verbatim, over and over again, then you are spouting off nothing but a PR line that has no sincerity in it.'
Kinda like what's happening right now with the opposition to the Bells. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by bogey780  :'When you keep repeating the same line, verbatim, over and over again, then you are spouting off nothing but a PR line that has no sincerity in it.' Kinda like what's happening right now with the opposition to the Bells. And to whom are you referring? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Those who say they're going to block and degrade competitors service. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by bogey780 :Those who say they're going to block and degrade competitors service. Madison River Communications has already blocked Vonage. They were forced to stop. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| They're not one of the bells, FWIW. They're a CLEC/RLEC. And for what the Bells are planning blocking competitors isn't a part of it. As it is current rules prohibit it and I don't seee the Bells lobbying to make it so they can block competitors from using certain ports. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| They might not block competitors but they can degrade them.
Simply saying, what they call QoS, could mean slowing down those who do not pay. "Best Effort" could mean anything including slowing it down so their "preferred traffic" can get through. If there are no other packets, then the rest of the non paying customers can go in until more preferred packets come in. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | "Slowing down" is a involved act. As stated Bell doesn't want to slow down or degrade anyone's surfing. They want to be able to offer better services and be able to charge for it. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Do you really believe they are going to build a whole separate network to carry "paid" traffic? Not likely.
They are making upgrades to what they have now and want all sides to pay for it under the guise of faster performance.
And as been shown before, what the Bells say and what they do are 2 very different things. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| 'Do you really believe they are going to build a whole separate network to carry "paid" traffic? Not likely.'
Well what they're doing isn't too far off. They're going to better manage the data traffic across their network. More efficient and much faster. |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to bogey780
If the present internet situation won't change for those who don't want the enhanced service, then I'll ask this again:
A number of bell executive statements say that google, vonage, etc. are PRESENTLY freeloaders. They don't say they would be future freeloaders if they wanted enhanced service but didn't pay for it but that they are PRESENT freeloaders(that is, freeloaders under the presently constructed order of things). Do ATT, BS, Verizon plan to allow them to continue to be freeloaders, even though the statements they have made say that the freeloading can not continue? If they don't intend to allow this freeloading to continue, then they clearly intend to radically alter the nature of the present internet, NOT to continue it undisturbed.
|
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to bogey780
Your right, that is exactly what they are going to do. But doing so is impeding the traffic of those that are not paying and that is the problem.
If they leave it alone the technology will work out it's own QoS. It always has and always will without these greedy bastards trying to steal from profitable companies.
Besides, where do you draw the line? Do all companies pay this extortion or only the "profitable ones"? What about the ramification of this on startups or new services being brought to the web? |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to asdfdfdf
Ahh, a PROFESSIONAL astroturfer we have here..
Your problem, of course, is that you make a false statement at the beginning, and then attempt to support it by offering an alternative.. Tricky... did your handler give you a sheet to use? I've worked with enough dickless marketing guys to recognize their writing style.
"The bell executive statements say google, etc are FREELOADERS". Well, DUH, but that statement is incorrect. Please explain exactly how they are 'freeloaders', they are paying for an internet connection.
The remains of your argument are based on the fact that you have defined google as a freeloader, and you are offering options for the telcos. Of course, you initial statement is pointless, so everything you say after that is meaningless noise.
Please tell your handlers to give you a better script next time. |
|
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | reply to moonpuppy
I will love to see how this plays out with gamers. Would all those xbox live people being told "Sorry MS did not pay us for the connection you are already paying for"
The bells will lose alot of subs and that is afitting pounishment. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to asdfdfdf
Disection time:
said by asdfdfdf :
If the present internet situation won't change for those who don't want the enhanced service, then I'll ask this again: AHHH, but it will change.
Just as operating systems and programs have increased in size (from kilobytes to gigabytes), so will data files. Imagine being able to copy a full 10MB HD over the net in under 5 minutes (when 10MB disks were considered huge.)
Now, MP3 files are around 5MB each, videos can be 10MB or much more, Linux distros are CD sized. More and more people are getting on the net daily and more and more data is flowing. It has to go somewhere. So the Bells are making their networks bigger to cope with the influx of users and the increase in file sizes. Otherwise, no one will want to surf a bottle necked system. This is one of the main selling points of a broadband connection; speed.
said by asdfdfdf :
A number of bell executive statements say that google, vonage, etc. are PRESENTLY freeloaders. They don't say they would be future freeloaders if they wanted enhanced service but didn't pay for it but that they are PRESENT freeloaders(that is, freeloaders under the presently constructed order of things). Do ATT, BS, Verizon plan to allow them to continue to be freeloaders, even though the statements they have made say that the freeloading can not continue? If they don't intend to allow this freeloading to continue, then they clearly intend to radically alter the nature of the present internet, NOT to continue it undisturbed.
O.k. by your reasoning, if I were to call you (long distance) on the phone, not only would I have to pay but so would you. When you call someone long distance, only the caller pays, not the receiver. The Bells would like both sides to pay. Should SBC pay when they try to call a Vonage number? What about a Verizon customer calling a T-Mobile number? Should they have to pay the cell airtime too?
Now, how are Google, Yahoo and Vonage "freeloaders?" They pay their ISPs to get on-line. We pay our ISPs for a connection to the net. Where is the free ride?
One explanation for all of this could be that the Bells know they can't hit up their customers for more money. Can you imagine the backlash if Verizon told all its customers that they need to charge an extra $5/month for network upgrades. It would probably be more for business customers.
This is nothing more than a shakedown of large companies that have money. The Bells need to upgrade their systems but are afraid to ask their customers for the money to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it. There are enough studies out there that show what people will pay for broadband and many think that price is too high as it is. How many people have dumped POTS lines in favor of cellular (not including those that don't even have VOIP.) |
|
Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :"Slowing down" is a involved act. As stated Bell doesn't want to slow down or degrade anyone's surfing. They want to be able to offer better services and be able to charge for it. Of course they want to slow down everyone's stuff but their partners. lets look at a scenario:
You have two services that each use 100kbs, these services are usable below that but after 70kbs become unusable. You have a 150kbs pipe to the net. This provides approximately 75kbs to both services and both run. Now lets say service "A" is paying the telcos, and service "B" is not. Service "A" now gets the full 100kbs it wants, but that leads service "B" with only 50kbs. Service "B" is now not usable, it has been degraded to the point where it is useless.
I know this is not what I am paying my ISP for. On a side note did anyone else notice how AT&T mentioned Google by name, but didn't mention Yahoo, with whom they are partnered with.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to G_Poobah
Wow. Though I admit to being less than impressive in the male anatomy department, I'm hurt more by the claim that I write like a marketing drone. You're missing my point. I know I only have myself to blame, since I continue to post as anonymous, but I have a long posting history as asdfdfdf and it in no way suggests I am a bell apologist.
I don't define google as a freeloader. Key management people at the different bocs have defined them this way. I am using their own words to explain how the claims that their apologists use, namely that there is no intention to alter the nature of the present internet but only to "offer an enhanced service", don't make any sense within the context of the comments the executives are making.
Apparently I am failing miserably in trying to use the bocs own words against them. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | reply to Skippy25
»redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/SG246297.html |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to G_Poobah
Let me try again.
Boc management says that, as the internet is presently organized, google, et al are freeloaders. They say that they do not intend to allow this freeloading to continue. How can they then claim that they have no intention of altering the present nature of the internet? These statements are contradictory. Aren't the original statements more likely to accurately represent their real intentions than the later reassurances that they didn't mean what they said? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to bogey780
I have passed the CCNA and work with 6500 and 4000 series switches and other Cisco routers/switches. Nothing in that link (which does not work) changes anything I posted. So what was your point in that? |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Working link- »www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/SG246297.html
4.6 Summary of QoS, it details what benefits implementation of QoS brings and how it's much better for network architecture. It doesn't harm normal data traffic and helps overall traffic to move more efficiently.
This is something Bell wants to do anyway with their traffic and the idea of charging content providers came secondary. Had they decided against even including content providers in their plans I can only imagine the articles we'd be seeing here. |
|
